January 20, 2012

Mitt Romney just put out this press release — a compendium of Newt Gingrich's "grandiose thoughts" over the years. It's pretty amusing, e.g., "I Have An Enormous Personal Ambition. I Want To Shift The Entire Planet. And I’m Doing It. … I Represent Real Power."

The occasion for the press release is, no doubt, the discussion of grandiosity at last night's debate. Rick Santorum started it. The moderator, John King, had just pointed out that Gingrich has been saying there should be only one conservative in the race now to face off against the seemingly inevitable Romney nomination, and it should be Gingrich, because Santorum doesn't have "any of the knowledge for how to do something on this scale."

Santorum said:

Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich. He -- he handles it very, very well. (Cheers, applause.) And that's really one of the issues here, folks....

King then turned to Gingrich and asked what he meant by "the knowledge for how to do something on this scale." Gingrich laid out his past accomplishments and finally came around to the "grandiosity" accusation:

You're right: I think grandiose thoughts. This is a grandiose country of big people doing big things, and we need leadership prepared to take on big projects. (Cheers, applause.)

That was an elegant rejoinder (and a warning to those of us who want a break from the federal government doing "big things"). Santorum spoke next, giving Gingrich "his due on grandiose ideas and grandiose projects" but faulting him on execution, the reason why "he was thrown out by the conservatives."

Romney then raised his hand to come into the conversation, and he went into a pretty babbly sequence of words that included:

If we want people who spent their life and their career -- most of their career in Washington, we have three people on the stage who've -- well, I take that back. We got a doctor down here who spent most of his time in the -- in the surgical suite -- well, not surgery -- the birthing suite.

And:

Now you asked me a(n) entirely different question. What do you -- what's -- (laughter) --

He looks over to Gingrich for help, and Gingrich is all "Beats me. I don't know. Where are we at, John?" Romney struggles to find a track:

Let's -- let's -- let me -- let me say -- let me say one -- one of the things I find amusing is listening -- is listening to how -- how much credit is taken in Washington for what goes on on Main Street. I -- I mean, Mr. Speaker, it was -- it was -- you talk about all the things you did with Ronald Reagan and -- and -- and the Reagan revolution and the jobs created during the Reagan years and so forth. I mean, I looked at the Reagan diary. You're mentioned once in Ronald Reagan's diary. And it's -- and in the diary, he says you had an idea in a meeting of -- of young congressmen, and it wasn't a very good idea, and he dismissed it. That -- that's the entire mention. And -- I mean, he mentions George Bush a hundred times. He even mentions my dad once.

Dad! Help!

But anyway... Gingrich was grandiose, and Mitt put out a press release to enumerate lots of things that he didn't have in his head to spew out at the right point in the debate last night.

Currently, and it will become a cacophony soon, you will be hearing about the recovery gaining steam due to Obama's policies, but as one of the few people out there hiring right now, I can tell you it's in spite of government, not because of it.

Business people are getting restless waiting for opportunity, and we are just saying the hell with it. Lets fight through and make some things happen. If the government hates us, then we'll just go down fighting, but were not going to just waste our time and capital waiting for these lawyers-wanna-be-leaders to wise up and understand capitalism.

It's freaking 2012, and the 20th century was glaring proof of the folly of government power. If the most failed, destructive and deadly ideology in history is something you think just needs a little tweaking, then I ain't waiting for you to wise up or go away. You either believe in the power of free markets and free people or you don't, but we aren't waiting any longer for you to respect what we do, just because you honestly don't really respect what you do. We get our confirmation of our correctness everyday in work and paychecks for real people, while you wait for bogus awards from your universe of sycophants to tell what's right.

I thought I was carefully listening to this debate, but I totally missed that stuff about the birthing suite.

Also, I would usually fault Romney for his sorta Perry moment when he was looking for guidance from King. Except that a) it seemed that Gingrich was also lost, and b) I also had no idea what Romney was supposed to be saying because my mind (like Romney's and Gingrich's) had wandered as he was speaking.

Presumably his uninterestingness is one of his selling points v. the grandiose Gingrich. So, from his POV, it's good that he's forgettable, even from his own POV.

Libertarians need to get a new guy. The ideology is rising and will continue to as the government continues to fail and overreach, but the movement needs a new young face who is more nimble and able to present a less dogmatic alternative.

Libertarianism is weakened most by libertarians who seem to only want an exclusive corner of the tent. Explain and teach, and stop trying to prove that your clever and above it all.

I have a problem with the words "grandiose" and "grandiosity". Newt uses them as though they were positive, but the positive words would be "grand" or "bold". "Grandiose" carries with it negative connotations of exaggeration and pomposity. I think Santorum understood that last night, but Newt didn't.

About that assertion that Gingrich "was thrown out by the conservatives" --

It does bear noting that, since Gingrich left the Speakership, the Republicans in Congress have done a pretty awful, crappy, piss-poor job.

Can anyone point to me the great accomplishments of Denny Hastert, John Boehner, Dick Armey, or Tom DeLay?? Or Bob Michel before Gingrich, whose main function was to grovel at the feet of the Democrats?

As for Romney, we keep hearing that his idea of grandiosity (and proof of his experience qualifying him to be president) is that he was an event planner. To be sure, in this particular instance, it was on a slightly level than being a community organizer, but both are hardly grand.

Even so, Romney has the audacity to hope that people are impressed by it. They shouldn't be. It might be worthy of a final task on "The Apprentice," but not for the presidency.

It's obvious that tucking myself into my bunker (with my digital cable service) and watching what Obama does in his 2nd term is about all I have to look forward to for the next 4 years. Try not to worry yourself too much, we're a resilient nation, we'll survive

About that assertion that Gingrich "was thrown out by the conservatives" --

More like everybody.

Newt left few friends in the House due to "All Newt, all the time".

As for Romney, we keep hearing that his idea of grandiosity (and proof of his experience qualifying him to be president) is that he was an event planner. To be sure, in this particular instance, it was on a slightly level than being a community organizer, but both are hardly grand.

Even so, Romney has the audacity to hope that people are impressed by it. They shouldn't be. It might be worthy of a final task on "The Apprentice," but not for the presidency.

Romney has had moments in all of the last debates where he could have sown up the nomination with a strong answer. He needs to show some sincere anger. I believe that he had an answer prepared for the income tax question and got scared and backed out. Newt's gamesmanship with releasing his taxes during the debate was designed to, and did throw Romney off and that is really puzzling. I don't think it really matters when he releases his income taxes or even if he releases them if he would just come out and say, "It's none of your damn business" or "On April 15th and I am not going to discuss it again until then."

Newt uses historical figures in his analogies. BFD. Most people are not going to know who Joe Blow from Tupelo is but they generally know the story of Moses.

bagoh20 said..."Libertarians need to get a new guy. The ideology is rising and will continue to as the government continues to fail and overreach, but the movement needs a new young face who is more nimble and able to present a less dogmatic alternative."

The problem with Paul isn't that he's not young, it's that he's nuts. And unfortunately, to judge by many of his fans, it's contagious. The isolationism, the obsession with fringe issues like the fed and gold, and the misidentification of their rather idiosyncratic understanding of the constitution as the authentic interpretation are the most obnoxious substantive issues, and the manner of presentation is a problem too.

Paul has a process for earmarks. In case the bill passes, he puts in earmarks for his constituents. Then he votes against the bill. If it goes down, he is happy that no earmarks got through. If it does not, the people he represents don't get cheated by being the only ones not to benefit.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best he can do. If it were possible to eliminate them altogether, he would vote to do that.

For all of us who are mostly libertarian minded, we have to live in the real world, not some imaginary world.

Andy R. said..."If the obstructionist/destructive Republican party got out of the way, Obama and the Democrats could fix most of the things going wrong in this country. How is that for you?"

If the obstructionist/destructive Republican party got out of the way, Obama and the Democrats would do the things they've talked about wanting to do, and more of the same, which are simply extensions of the same luunacy that produced most of the things going wrong in this country. There's a simple reason for our current political dysfunction: The country is divided, ergo the Congress is divided, and each side sincerely believes that the other side's "solutions" contributed to the current situation and will thus deepen not alleviate our problems. Against that backdrop, expecting compromise is irrational.

FWIW, there have been extremely few legislators who went on to become President. Most Presidents have executive experience, whether state Governor, Vice President, military experience, business, or government executive bureaucracy...or multiples thereof.I'm convinced that 80% of Obama's problem is that he has zero executive experience.I'm convinced that even considering the Bush Fatigue Syndrome, the only reason Obama won is that he was facing another legislator, rather than executive.As such, to me, Santorum and Gingrich (as was Bachmann) were disqualified from the start due to lack of executive experience.

I still think conservative control with Tea Party influence in both the House and Senate are the key to getting the nation turned around. Getting any Republican into the WH is a just-barely lower priority...but of the remaining candidates, I'll take the one with executive experience, even if he is my last choice of the executives (behind Palin, Christie, Daniels, Perry, Cain, Jindal, Jeb Bush, McDonnell...)

As much as I like Rubio and Allen West, I wouldn't want them as Presidential candidates, either. Veep, at most, as preparation for a later Presidential candidacy, maybe.

Gingrich is angrily barking at reporters about his infidelities, Romney looks as if he just witnessed a horrific car crash when asked a simple question, and Obama is singing Al Green. I would have to say Obama won the week.

As much as I like Rubio and Allen West, I wouldn't want them as Presidential candidates, either. Veep, at most, as preparation for a later Presidential candidacy, maybe.

I think a lot of groundwork, re political correctness revocation, would need to happen culturally before a plain speaker like West will be able to surmount all opposition to 1600 Penn Ave. I like the cut of the guy's gib, but that doesn't translate to political leadership, however much real-world leadership he's got in his background. We'll see.

Frankly, I think the whole PC thing is going to go the way of the dinosaurs, sooner than later. The Boomers that birthed it are, I think, running out of steam in sufficient quantities to prop it up. Most of Gen X and the Millennials think it's the see-through bullshit it always has been.

Tell that to a family that planned for a year to go to Disney for a vacation, only to arrive to find half of it closed to them so Obama could sing Al Green.

I would be sympathetic to that family's plight up to a point. There should always -- always -- be a plan "B" when you're traveling, simply because stuff happens that you don't expect. It might be a storm, a dead plane, a broken amusement ride, or a political fundraiser. Either way, you've got to find something else to do, and better to plan it in advance than to be spinning your wheels or getting angry at things outside your control.

Besides, planning vacations (IMO) is almost as fun as actually taking them.

It's not whining. You think your guy is just zippy-fucking-tastic for singing Al Green. I'm suggesting he inconvenienced a shitload of people to do so and you still think it's zippy-fucking-tastic. I'm quite certain they could have found a place to hold his little "do" that wouldn't have impacted as many people, most of which aren't down there for more than once a year, if that.

I would be sympathetic to that family's plight up to a point. There should always -- always -- be a plan "B" when you're traveling, simply because stuff happens that you don't expect. It might be a storm, a dead plane, a broken amusement ride, or a political fundraiser. Either way, you've got to find something else to do, and better to plan it in advance than to be spinning your wheels or getting angry at things outside your control.

But you know who did control it? The President of the United States. Who used taxpayer money to fly to Orlando to shut down part of a park for no reason other than he wanted a backdrop.

You know, when you are POTUS, constantly expecting the regular people to rearrange their lives for your whims sends out a bad message.

Paul has a process for earmarks. In case the bill passes, he puts in earmarks for his constituents. Then he votes against the bill. If it goes down, he is happy that no earmarks got through. If it does not, the people he represents don't get cheated by being the only ones not to benefit.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the best he can do. If it were possible to eliminate them altogether, he would vote to do that.

For all of us who are mostly libertarian minded, we have to live in the real world, not some imaginary world.

Then Libertarians need to live in the real world as far as foreign policy is concerned.

There are far more important things to criticize BHO for than inconveniencing some tourists.

This goes without saying. Merely bringing it up was as petty as GM said it was, although I still say it's not whining. It is petty though. As much as his original claim that Obama won the week for singing Al Green. Petty.

It's not whining. You think your guy is just zippy-fucking-tastic for singing Al Green.

He sang Al Green at the Apollo.

Every week there is a new mini outrage over the stupidest things. Is there anyone else complaining besides right wing bloggers about this trip? He is going to be in Orlando for three whole hours, to make a tourism related announcement. Oy.

Machs nicht. In the context of your mini-contest, pitting the mini-outrage at Gingrich and Romney against the mini-accomplishment of singing Al Green at the Apollo, I suggested that his rather large impact on a lot of people, for no other reason than he wanted to, trumps Gingrich and Romney.

n the context of your mini-contest, pitting the mini-outrage at Gingrich and Romney against the mini-accomplishment of singing Al Green at the Apollo, I suggested that his rather large impact on a lot of people,

It was just a remark over who seems to be enjoying the process. And I bet there were quite a few visitors that are glad they may get a chance to see the President speak on their trip. Again, he is in Orlando for less than three hours.

Pointless point. I worked in air-medical when Clinton was POTUS. Him just coming into STL for an hour speech in a downtown hotel ballroom shut the city, and the air dome over the city, down for four hours total.

I don't know if the SS has let up on these requirements, but I highly doubt it. Not with all the potential terrorists Big Sis says are out there.

There are far more important things to criticize BHO for than inconveniencing some tourists.

It's all part of the big picture.This is the guy running on populist rhetoric. He cares. He is going to bring you economic justice, and the republicans are going to leave you on your own. He wants people to pay more in taxes to support the vital services Government has to offer. The rich fat cats fly around in their private jets and pay low tax rates and want to take away from *you*, the average taxpayer.

Yet, when push comes to shove, he does exactly what he wants to do, without regard to who it inconveniences, and with no regard to expense to the taxpayer.

Republicans always seem to be playing the victim card - victims of the vicious MSM. The reality is the MSM is too soft on all politicians. This was his opportunity to respond to something that's already out there. He's the one who everyone (except maybe those in the crowd) thinks is a serial aldulterer and hypocrite and now he's a victim too.

He was one of the main figures behind Clinton's impeachment. He preaches about family values. He put himself in this position.

"and Obama is singing Al Green. I would have to say Obama won the week."

Indeed, as Reps continue to implode, much like the Dems in 1968 ~ I digress.

And a shout out to Bartles "Gingrich's strength is that he is a big idea guy." Not surprising Bart that Newt is your guy given his competition ie can't win Santo, can't win Paul and clueless flip/flopper mittens.

btw Bart, Dow is continuing its trend upward, so that double dip you were hopin'/prayin' for is propably just another of your pipe dreams. Sorry!

Given how much it costs for him to travel—Air Force One alone costs approximately $181,757 per hour, and while it would be hard to quantify the other direct and indirect costs to all involved, they are undoubtedly significant—might we at least agree that he should travel only to the extent that it accomplishes something worthwhile?

Bender - "Can anyone point to me the great accomplishments of Denny Hastert, John Boehner, Dick Armey, or Tom DeLay??"

Add Pelosi onto your list. All were BIG, Transformational Leaders with Cosmically important thoughts, to use Newts language.

==============The Santorum attack was effective. A reminder to conservative rubes and yahoos that Newt is a self-promoting megalomaniac that would have great difficulties managing a 7/11 effectively. The people that have worked with Newt, know him best - are the ones with the highest Newt negatives.

The Romney attack, while stumbling about in true HW Bush fashion, was also effective.Gingrich now has a "Reagan and I" line of self puffery.

As in..."What I and Reagan did, working together, was to cut taxes, to add 16 million jobs, and defeat the Soviet Union. That is the BIG MAN that I am!"To which Romney's comeback untimately was..in reading Reagan's biography on his big accomplisments..he spreads praise far and wide. But there is only one mention of Newt regarding Reagan's 8 years in office. As a young Congressman that showed up once at a meeting with an idea that Reagan and advisors determined was a bad idea and dismissed as soon as he said it.

That was the only impact Newt's profound, cosmically vast and transformational mind made in the Reagan Administration. Newt had no role in 16 million jobs, of outwitting the Soviets as Reagan's team feasted on every portentous word of the Obamalike Perfessor. Just a zany junior backbencher House member remembered only for a bad idea.

"Obama Shuts Down Main Street USA"-Not grandiose or annoying at all and super-clever to boot. Makes for a great headline. Genius!

Newt Gingrich's rivals think he is "grandiose" because he has big ideas and is an effective debater.-let's not elect that retard.

P.S. The libs in here are boring. Sideways Ballcap Guy, Cow, Etc. need to step up their game because they're just taking up space between the entertaining and interesting comments at this point. You love Obama and worship him above all other gods. Got it.

Indeed, as Reps continue to implode, much like the Dems in 1968 ~ I digress.

And a shout out to Bartles "Gingrich's strength is that he is a big idea guy." Not surprising Bart that Newt is your guy given his competition ie can't win Santo, can't win Paul and clueless flip/flopper mittens.

----------

Looks like Shiloh is doing the America's Politico/Bagdad Bob schtick this week.

So to watch Newt's faux outrage and the cheering, slavering masses of the GOP rank and file hypocrites was pretty special. If Newt has sex with staff and someone wants to ask him about it, time to break out the smelling salts because it is all so terrible.

If a Democrat gets their knob polished, it's time to bring the nation's business to a grinding halt to seek impeachment.

Apparently, Republicans have no capacity for embarrassment. Oh, and they are ALWAYS victims! Waaaahhh!

Go Newt!

p.s. How is complaining about "elites" not "class warfare?" Because it's elites doing the complaining maybe? I need a drink.

Him just coming into STL for an hour speech in a downtown hotel ballroom shut the city, and the air dome over the city, down for four hours total.

So POTUS can never travel, anywhere? This kind of stuff is just nonsense.

----------------

It wouldn't be such a concern if Obama wasn't a collosal Carteresque failure that destroyed any chance of recovery with terrible policies like Obamacare and green energy boondoggles, who only seems concerned with re-election rather than actually helping America through the worst economy since the great depression.

Re: winning the week, Obama is out fund raising for the general campaign in the fall, whereas Newt/mittens are spending $$$ trying to stay above water in the continuing conservative circle jerk which is the Rep primary. And providing never ending campaign ad material for Obama's presidential campaign.

Last time Newtron "the bomb" Gingrich had a big media meltdown, he sent out this entertaing and conceited screed about His Wonderfulness.

“The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.”

Did you know when he entered politics, his head was 1/3 the size it's current humongoussness? Massive swelling since. :^)

So to watch Newt's faux outrage and the cheering, slavering masses of the GOP rank and file hypocrites was pretty special. If Newt has sex with staff and someone wants to ask him about it, time to break out the smelling salts because it is all so terrible.

If a Democrat gets their knob polished, it's time to bring the nation's business to a grinding halt to seek impeachment.

-----------

Actually, Clinton was impeached for purgery during a deposition for a sexual harrasment lawsuit.

You see, he wasn't just "getting his knob polished", he was a secual predator with a victim line stretching around the block. A rapist.

Re: winning the week, Obama is out fund raising for the general campaign in the fall, whereas Newt/mittens are spending $$$ trying to stay above water in the continuing conservative circle jerk which is the Rep primary. And providing never ending campaign ad material for Obama's presidential campaign.

Not a close call ...

---------

Yeah, you forgot to mention that his fundraising and crowds have been drying up faster than Nancy Pelosi's withered vag.

only 40 million in the last quarter, a new record low. And he's gone from stadiums to high school gyms.

And yes Amartel, the libs are soooo boring you went out of your way to make a comment. And thank goodness you have Althouse's conservatives to keep you entertained :D 'cause hey, if you're not entertained, what's the point!

But their outbursts have also uncovered a GOP id that cheers for Texas' vigorous use of the death penalty; cheers repeated attacks on the national media, even when it is embodied by Fox News moderators; boos at the suggestion that the federal government, not the states, should enforce immigration laws; boos at anything less than a send-them-all-back immigration policy; boos a gay soldier who asks a question about gay rights; cheers at the mention of waterboarding and torture as a means of interrogating terrorism suspects; and boos at an African-American reporter who asks repeated questions about race, poverty, inequality and racial stereotypes.

Republicans pretty much claim to be Jesus Christ's own political party, yet the hate they ooze is overwhelming. Jesus was not a hater.

So when a woman tells a man "wanna see my thong" (per Ken Starr's salacious report) that means that the man is the one doing the pursuing?

He was busted over sex. The sex charge came up during a miserably failed and hyper-partisan Independent Counsel investigation of a real estate deal. The question never should have been asked

-----------

Actually the "sex charge" came up during a deposition over one of the sexual harrasment lawsuits filed against him. You aren't too good with facts.

He was impeached because he was a guy that left a long string of sexual assault victims in his wake, even Demoicrats in the media were disquieted by that piece of shit's history, but in the end he was their rapist so politics won out over decency for the left yet again.

The "perjury" in question was based on the Whitewater investigation but there were second allegations from the Paula Jones case.

Paula Jones being the person who was involved with the partisan witchhunt to bring down Bill Clinton, bankrolled by Richard Mellon Scaife and headed up be the American Spectator. So you know she's real credible.

------------

No shithead, Paula Jones was a Bill Clinton sexual assualt victim, one of many. You should try a bit of respect.

As AlphaLiberal well knows, impeachment was sought against Clinton for lying under oath. As AlphaLiberal also well knows there is no public statement by Gingrich calling for Clinton's impeachment over a blow job. But why should the truth get in the way of the narrative?

Andy, pining for a dictatorship isn't going to solve any problems, although I'm never surprised that this is the preferred solution of many lefties. Another ill-considered quick fix with disastrous long-term consequences.

The Republicans aren't holding Barry back, either; he's just not very good at this. He had total control for two years, and instead of doing anything to help the economy, he chose health care. Jesus God what an idiot.

I'm hoping a conservative Republican wins in November just so they can wield the veto pen like Zorro with a rapier. (I'm not referring to Clinton either.) After seeing Bush with a GOP Congress and Barry with a Dem Congress, I've given up hope that we can walk back any of the legislative sediment that's built up alarmingly over the last decade. Republican congressman have also shown a penchant for pork and influence peddling when they're in power.

I don't get it. Look at Romney $, and how poorly he does in these debates. Yet, he is still not carrying the day, and the fewer opponents he has, the worse he does.

Why would anyone think this milk toast guy has a chance against Obama? It doesn't make sense.

I don't think Romney has a better chance of winning the presidency than Newt. We aren't seeing republicans, for instance, hammering on Romney's mormonism, for instance, but we know Leftists "ends justify the means" folks will.

To me, I would rather expose Obama in debates with Gingrich and lose then watch Romney not expose Obama and lose.

I also think Newt has bigger ideas, and I would rather have Newt as presidency anyway. What has Romney offered? "I'm going to get rid of the illegals, and fight trade wars." That's about it.

Dante - "To me, I would rather expose Obama in debates with Gingrich and lose then watch Romney not expose Obama and lose.

I also think Newt has bigger ideas, and I would rather have Newt as presidency anyway"=============Dante, every Republican that has worked with Gingrich has stated he would be a total disaster as a nominee..and an even bigger disaster if he was elected President. History notes the great disasters of nations run by megalomaniacs. Mussoloni, etc.It's bad enough with a near-megalomaniac in Obama, the man who said he would stop the oceans rise and heal the planet. But Newt is a true megalomaniac.

You pin your dreams on Newt losing by 20 points...but "EXPOSING!!" Obama with a few clever zingers in two debates??? And for 3 hours the public will see the Vast Mind of Newt Himself...That will somehow humble Team Obama as they start their next 4 years and 3 SCOTUS appointments??Maybe when Obama is in his second term you can wait in a line where Newt is selling books and tell him he had a really clever riposte in the 2nd and last debate that you savor as a true believer....

You could say that Romney achieved the "great man" American dream: he got rich! But he got rich from working in the financial business, and that's where things get a little murky.

The traditional Republican default position is that a rich man has gotten what he deserves, always achieved on a foundation of hard work. Yet at the same time, the public has seen this assumption break down lately in the financial industry. Fat cats got their piles because of manipulation and salesmanship and government connections, and not the least bit of productive work.

So did Romney do the hard work for just compensation, or did he exploit the modern ability of the financial system to enrich participants far beyond their contribution?

I think many people suspect that Romney is in the later category, a modern-day robber baron.

We don't have enough info about Romney to know for sure. He still hasn't released his tax returns. And why does Romney try to confuse the public by saying that he "lived in the real streets of America", that he is "part of the middle class", that he is "also unemployed", and that federal employees make more than he does? It is dishonest and manipulative. And it makes no sense!

But, eh, Althouse supports him. So will Miss #1-Law-Blawgger and her henchman husbander delete this comment? Does it cross some line of convenience and therefore deserve deletion? Hmmm... let's see...

You pin your dreams on Newt losing by 20 points...but "EXPOSING!!" Obama with a few clever zingers in two debates??? And for 3 hours the public will see the Vast Mind of Newt Himself...That will somehow humble Team Obama as they start their next 4 years and 3 SCOTUS appointments??Maybe when Obama is in his second term you can wait in a line where Newt is selling books and tell him he had a really clever riposte in the 2nd and last debate that you savor as a true believer....

Your phrasing here shows that you believe that Romney is more electable somehow. Dante clearly stated he did not believe that to be the case, and that given an equal chance between the 2 candidates of winning or losing, he'd rather see Gingrich run the course than Romney. Gingrich would go down fighting and expose a lot in the process. The exposure obviously wouldn't cause a 2nd term Obama administration to put the brakes on, but could certainly provide some serious "I told you so" educational moments for others watching down the line.

It's so much fun watching the group of Republicans realizing what a joke it would be to nominate Newt to run for President trying to explain this to the other Republicans who are too dumb to understand.

Interesting election night 2008 in the wee hours of the morning Steve Kroft interviewed Gibbs, Axelrod, Plouffe, Dunn for 60 Minutes and they basically said the only way Obama could win the nomination was by running a grass roots campaign and letting the chips fall where they may ~ having to run against the "unbeatable" Clinton political machine ...

Whereas Gingrich knows the only way he can defeat mittens is by waging a scorched earth/take no prisoners campaign that will ultimately leave Romney a wounded duck. Newt is an open book and again he will let the chips fall where they may, battle scars be damned lol.

Such is the conundrum of the Rep fiasco in 2012. And the irony of the only one who could come close to running a grass roots campaign is Paul. :D

Reps strategists have one campaign strategy ie hoping enough American's hate Obama as much as they do and maybe that will lead them to victory.

IOW 100% negativity, but first let's sit back and enjoy! :) the Newt/mittens death match.

And those SC folk loved them some gingrich last nite, but again IIRC Obama lost SC in 2008 and still easily won the election.

and they basically said the only way Obama could win the nomination was by running a grass roots campaign and letting the chips fall where they may ~ having to run against the "unbeatable" Clinton political machine ...

I'm sorry, Shiloh, but they lied to you. They had their people out accusing Clinton of racism, writing up scathing articles about him for Vanity Fair, and plotting behind Hillary's back to get Super Delegates.They had the Kennedy machine behind them.And talk about scorched earth- they even had the people at the DNC take legitimate primary votes away from Hillary and give them to Obama, just to humiliate her a little bit more.

After finishing his own Eagle Scout award ceremony, Saint-orum helped out by saying over and over that the GOP Congress critters ( The same ones who stole us blind after Gingrich resigned ) had to fire him implying Gingrich went postal on the GOP thieves. I guess Gingrich wanted to do grandiose shit, and could not focus of looting the US Treasury.

My choice would be between The Honeybadger President and Ritmo's perfect symbol for Gingrich which is a Great Beached Whale.

Like Newt, the Honeybadger just don't care how Grandiose he is when he is snake killing.

The Beached Whale is a good description for him physically...unless he gets voters to put him back into the waters tomorrow night. Then the Jaws theme music can become his campaign song.

Why do you feed the troll? He simply repeats Daily Kos/DNC talking points. He has yet to show an ability to exercise independent reasoning.

BTW, the beauty of this site is that people can agree/disagree in a humorous and intelligent manner that reflects their independent reasoning. Groupthink is relatively rare on this site, and then there's always Titus. God bless him.

Did I say I thought that Obama would beat Newt by 20 points? I think that's highly unlikely for either Newt or Romney. I think the chances of Romney losing are significantly higher than for Newt losing.

My order for president goes like this: Newt, Romney, Obama. I think the chances of getting elected are roughly (Newt|Obama) Romney.

If a republican is going to lose the election, I would much rather it be Newt, because he is going to expose Obama. In my view, Romney is a memorizer, not a clear thinker, it shows in the debate, and Romney is going to look like the liberal he is.

Maybee, only thought Althouse lemmings whined about Obama mistreating Reps, wah wah wah, but they also whine about Obama not playing fair against Hillary.

Shocking! IOW Obama beat the Clinton machine at their own game as Hillary underestimated Obama and was out of $$$ after Super Tuesday.

btw, Hillary and Bill were soooo outraged they gave "bring the house down" scorched earth speeches totally supporting Obama at the Dem convention in Denver. And then Hillary became Secretary of State. Gasp!

I've never been much of a fan of Gingrich for a number of reasons, but now I have been reading the opinion of the mental midgets such as Andy, I have to wonder if I have been missing something about Gingrich all these years.

"If the obstructionist/destructive Republican party got out of the way, Obama and the Democrats could fix most of the things going wrong in this country. How is that for you?"

I would be happy to have them get out of the way if:1. after the massive failure of Obama and the democrats to fix ANYTHING going wrong in this country your side would stop pushing those failed policies and2. I thought there was any possibility of moving the line back to where we started from, rather than our new default position being even further to the left after the massive failures of Obama and the democrats not fixing any problems but rather making them a magnitude worse than current. Although I'm sure you believe that massive spending (sorry, "investment") and much higher taxes (but only on the productive) and more socialism will work THIS time. No doubt everyone previous has just been doing it wrong.

"or did he exploit the modern ability of the financial system to enrich participants far beyond their contribution?"

This concern re the source of enrichment doesn't matter. As long as no laws are broken, only the market can decide how riches should be allocated. If a CEO brings home the same dough as a thousand (or ten thousand, or....) employees, that means that they deserved it, even if the company goes bust.

It is odd that Romney is suggesting that some rich people are more deserving than others--he proudly notes that he earned his money w/o any inheritance (his dad was a broke Mexican--growing up must have been tough for poor Mitt).

Cons should avoid this trap. Why invite a conversation that starts w/ the assumption that it's perfectly reasonable to slice and dice rich folks into a hierarchy of deservedness?

If Mitt's right that inherited dough is somehow less honorable, perhaps it's not so bad to tax it, since it is (in Mitt's mind) tainted by not being earned? And, that's just the first step on a slippery slope that starts the minute a con acknowledges that the money in some folks' bank accounts is better than the money in other folks' bank accounts.

P.S.What if Mitt's family was pretty rich, and what if Mitt did grow up w/ the advantages of being pretty rich? Did he go to school w/ student loans? Did his dad spot him over forty grand (back when that meant something) the buy a house?

Are Mitt's accomplishments diminished if it turns out that he started w/ a head start over most folks? I don't think so, but his effort to obscure his not-humble beginnings makes it look like he may disagree w/ me.

P.S.In that last debate, didn't he say something about his experience w/ "the streets?" Why does he try to obscure that a guy who grew up better off than most?

Don't make it look like being rich is some sort of offense, if you're trying to make the point that your opposition is guilty of claiming that richness is some sort of offense.

Better tactic: "I'm Mitt, I grew up w/ way more opportunity than most because my dad made a lot of dough. And, then I made way more dough than most folks who started w/ my advantages. And, you envy me, and you are a class warrior if you suggest that folks like me should pay more in taxes. If you had worked as hard as me, you'd be rich too."

On second thought, maybe this is one of those situations where the public can't handle the the truth. Maybe Romney should keep talking about his experience "on the streets."

The problem is that while the public distrusts the media, Newts bluster and attacking the messenger, plus his "forgiveness ploy" probably won't sit well for long. What people do in their personal life matters when they run for office - ask Terry Stanford, his "hiking in the Appalachins" and his wrecked political future. Or John Edwards.

While evangelicals and conservatives forgive in a way those who apologize, "talk to God" about their flaws and say they asked God's help.....it isn't even 100% forgiveness in the South.

Nor is the "I'm a 68-year old grandfather" defense a reason to accept them. Southern conservatives do not accept 68-year old Jane Fonda's excuses that she apologized for her Hanoi Jane stunts, her menege a trois sex acts and got down and prayed with Ted Turner when she was married to him to seek forgiveness.

This also gets to Newt's megalomania. Such people always seem to think morality and "common smaller sort of persons notions of integrity" doesn't apply to them, because they are Bigger than all that! Serial philandering is a symptom of that.Add in other dangerous signs like never in the military Newt claiming he is the "senior instructor" to all 1-Star and 2-Star generals in "the Art of War". (At least a more recent case of such ego-driven nuttiness was a highly decorated combat vet and lower enlisted corporal before he became the Master Leader with the sweeping strategic vision his Generals could only stand in awe of as his Grand Vision for Europe unfolded)

The only big idea we've heard from Newt is having poor kids mop the floors of their schools. I suppose it's an improvement over midnight basketball, but not by much.

It also sounds like he wants to get rid of food stamps, but he doesn't come out and say so. Getting rid of them completley sounds like right-wing social engineering, which we know Newt is against, or, at least, was against for a few minutes last year.

We've also heard that Newt doesn't like Bain's practices, though Newt sat on the board of a different private equity company. There are legitimate criticisms of private equity, but Newt hasn't articulated any. And Newt's private sector experience is advising corporatists.

Newt's brilliance is the same as Obama's brilliance. Often asserted, never displayed.

And Newt couldn't get on the ballot of the state he lives in. So he filed a lawsuit, like a whiny loser.

I'm not fans of Romney or Santorum, but they are much better than Newt and are capable of doing the job of President. Newt is not capable. He is a bullshitter.

Did I say I thought that Obama would beat Newt by 20 points? --------------No, Real Clear Politics had poll averages with Obama leading Romney by 2 points (Romney was tied or ahead before Newt and his imicile stooge Perry went into the Romney 1% and a stinking vulture capitalist attacks).

While Newt is down 12 points against Obama and could drop even down to 20 points when the full attacks on this preposterous blowhard really get underway.

You know, for all the grief Andy the Hatboy gets, he is right that conservative Republicans have gotten into a very destructive mindset that they want a True Believer and a Showman. Smarter Democrats nearly turned themselves inside out when the Democrat herd went for the self-destructive Showman Teddy Kennedy. Went through it again with the Jesse Jackson travelling snake oil show and Jesse Winning Debates!! (by preackerspeak and total Negro moral authority).Then the herd won with the Dreamy Black Messiah.

Now it is Republicans that want the Showman. The true believers begging Rush or Sean Hannity or Michael Savage to run were replaced by the Cult of Adoration of Unqualified Bimbo Palin.And the hunger was there when snakeoil pitcher Herman Cain arrived and found the Yahoos hungering for a pitchman. Now Newt.

Except Newt is dangerous. He is more than some Rush Limbaugh that conservatives want to see zing Obama in debates before Obama is reelected over the unelectable Rush, Hannity, Palin, Cain, etc.

Newt really believes he can reorder America with his Cosmically Profound, Transformational..ideas!

This concern re the source of enrichment doesn't matter. As long as no laws are broken, only the market can decide how riches should be allocated

Actually, it is the legality of it that does not matter.

What does matter is whatever the hell voters say matters. Only the voters can decide how votes should be allocated.

If Republican primary voters want to know if Romney gamed the system, if he got rich while the economy tanked by selling short, then it IS their business to know.

And if Romney wants to tell Republican voters to go to hell, that if they want to see his records, then they'll have to nominate him first, he can do that too. But most folks wouldn't buy a car without taking a test drive BEFORE they buy it, so why would they give a guy their vote before knowing all that they want to know.

I guess Romney and his tax returns = Pelosi and ObamaCare, which she said we had to pass first if we wanted to know what was in it.

Yes, my bias is for Gingrich to take risks rather than a Romney managing the decline, or an Obama pushing it downhill faster.

Perhaps I haven't considered the primary issue of government enough, that once government arrogates some function as its role, be it one of the many compassionate functions, education, etc., it almost invariably is impossible to excise.

In fact, the only person I have known who has had any success at this is Newt Gingrich, returning power to the states, when there was a Democrat President!

So despite what people say about Newt's insanity, he doesn't make the laws, he signs them. He is the executive, and can work things through that otherwise would not be possible.

With Newt you can't get the complaints about non-bipartisanship. He knows how to do it in a way that yields results. The only results I can look to in Romney is a watered down version of Obama. I want a warrior in there.

Regarding Gingrich, as of December 15th, he had raised $2.9 Million, compared to Romney > $30M. Imagine how well he would do if he had funds like Romney. Gingrich is doing well because people like what he says, not because he is buying the election.

I really appreciate Ron Paul's honesty, and ideas. He is a window into the past, and I am really glad he is in the debates. If I thought there were a path to his government view, I would rather live there than where we are.

But I don't see how to get there with Ron Paul. Newt seems the best chance back, in my view. I really hope Newt picks up on Ron Paul's ideas regarding protecting/subsidizing Europe with troops, North Korea, Japan, etc.

When I was a young kid Senator Hubert Humphrey came through the small Wisconsin town where I lived.

He was campaigning for office in a presidential primary. My old man dragged me to Humphrey's rally because my old man thought Humphrey was a helluva guy.

Humphrey stood on the back of an old flatbed truck in a parking lot and spoke to a crowd, no sound system, nothing but his loud, strong voice. I loved hearing him, felt moved.

I don't recall what he said; I surely didn't understand it at the time, but I remember thinking that he really, really, believed it. His voice soared, the crown applauded often, cheered, yelled for more. He was inspiring.

Harold Stassen came through town a few weeks later and we went to hear him speak. It was dull, quiet, boring, reasoned. My old man got tired of it and we left before Stassen finished speaking.

Humphrey had grandiose ideas. He convinced us that we were good, and that we could be better, much better. He had ideas, grand things America and Americans could do. He was inspirational.

Gingrich has the grandiosity of big ideas. He tells us his ideas, some good, other not so good perhaps. He has ideas!

Romney has a marketing plan. Gingrich's grandiose ideas, pictures painted with the fulsome of words will trump Romney's marketing plan, no matter how smart and accomplished the creator of that plan may be.

Sorry, I'm a bit lacking in that magical quality this morning (if it were up to me, Tinkerbell would be dead dead dead.)

Instead, how about you do the math, and show your work: exactly how would having more funds help Gingrich at this point? Is it that the masses have never heard of him? Has he been locked out of the debates like Gary Johnson was? Help me out here...